Roberto Contract Could be Rejected?

[Soapy]

"The Ilya Kovalchuk ruling has come back to bite Vancouver Canuck goalieRoberto Luongo. Arbitrator Richard Bloch, makes reference to Luongo in hisruling as holding another long-term contract he plans to look at. Team GMMike Gillis confirms the item and is waiting to hear more from Bloch."

The NHL is rewiewing 'retirement' contracts? Roberto has already played & been paid under the contract....how can this happen??
Where is the NHLPA?

[WpgJets]

Canuck general manager Mike Gillis confirmed in an email to the Vancouver Sun Monday night that the league is indeed studying Luongo's 12-year, $64 million contract.

"We have complied with the NHL request for information and are awaiting further instructions," Gillis said. "Cannot say anything further at this point."

Nasty.

[Cornuck]

Crazy stuff - good article here on it.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_d ... nhl-261315

Since Luongo's 'extention' goes into effect next year, the league has a better chance of voiding it. It seems like the league waited for an extreme example that they knew they would win before going after the borderline deals.

We don't need another distraction for our captain.

[Kel]

Luongo's new contract came into effect on July 1st; otherwise he would have been free to talk contract and sign with any team starting then. Even though he has not played nor received salary from it, the acceptance of the contract by the NHL has already significantly affected the player and the team, especially that his previous contract expired over a month ago and he would become an UFA on July 1st. Furthermore, the NHL already investigated this contract once last summer and had plenty of opportunity to reject it while Luongo was under his old contract.

[ClamRussel]

Mr. Arbitrator is a little full of himself isn't he. Seems he wants to keep HIS contract going by investigating other deals. Luongo's deal was done a year ago...time to move on. If the NHL has drawn a line in the sand they can use it moving forward. I suppose they'll want to look into Pronger's deal next as well eh? The NHL raped the players in the last CBA (well its relative) and this is a loophole they have to live with. In fact its their OWN GMs and owners who are offering these deals to improve their own teams. I agree the Kovalchuk deal went too far but if the deals are even somewhat believable they should just man up and live w/ it until the agreement ends.

Watch the negative fuelled media jump all over this one for days...I can hear Pratt & Taylor now....and Gallagher et al.

[Jelly]

Adds Devils owner to the list of GMs that hate Bettman

The arbitrator was not neutral IMO
There is no way that contract should be voided based on the CBA

Common sense? Hell yes it should be. But the CBA was never about common sense

[Jovorock]

Adds Devils owner to the list of GMs that hate Bettman

I hope the NHL owners finally get some balls and fire or not renue Buttman's contract. Doesn't butman's contract end after the 10-11 season?

[Fred]

Maybe they can get around the term of the contract by having "out clauses" where the team/player has the option to walk away or continue every say 3 years. I'd go for that, frankly I'm not liking Luongo's deal the way he's played of late (last season) and rather than being the backbone of future success I'm wondering if he's the flaw in our future success.

As it stands Luongo's deal has an out for Luongo after 5 years and a Canucks out after 7 years


Just read this at Hockey Buzz

With the recent Kovalchuk decision and subsequent information from the arbitration hearing announcing the league will look into contracts of Luongo, Hossa, Savard and Pronger what can the Canucks expect? More importantly what do they want?

At this point in time within the constant shape shifting of player position surpluses there may be no worse time to be a free agent goalie. One could argue this may be the least opportune time for a 'franchise' player goalie to be a free agent. Roberto Luongo may find out how bad it is.

If the NHL is going to look at his 'registered' though not in effect contract, and it appears this is the league's intention, what happens to Luongo and the Canucks if it is indeed deemed to be void? While certainly the Canucks would publicly announce their intention to sign Luongo they may be very happy in a more private setting. If this situation were to materialize I don't think for a second the Canucks would mind. Their hands are tied to a 5.3 million cap hit this year and with the current Stanley Cup winning goalie unsigned I doubt the Canucks don't use some leverage for the next contract they would have to negotiate.

It's a harsh business and nowhere is it harder than contract negotiations under duress. Luongo has had two back to back seasons with injury along with two post seasons with less than stellar second round performances. Would he have the same number of suitors and has his 'mystique' faded?

Now with a goalie of Luongo's calibre available to any team and Vancouver currently with no cap space it also puts the Canucks in a tight spot should competition for Luongo's services arise. If the current goalie value in the NHL market is any indication I would imagine that Luongo and his agent are fairly nervous and preparing more than an argument for arbitration. They don't want this situation at all and he lawsuit to prevent it is surely in the works.

So here are my visions of possible outcomes for Luongo and Vancouver.

1. Contract stays and nothing changes-likelihood about 50%.

2. Contract rejected and Canucks and Luongo do a 7 year deal averaging around 6 mill/year-likelihood about 20%.

3. Contract rejected and Luongo and Canucks are allowed to play current season at salary and cap hit but must alter for next season-likelihood 15%.

4. Contract rejected and two sides cannot reach agreement and Luongo signs elsewhere or Canucks replace him first-likelihood 5%.

5. Contract rejected and two parties agree on 1 year deal for 5.3 million- likelihood 5%.

6. Who bloody knows becuase this is getting out of hand?

While there may be a simple solution, and I'm sure more than a few people are working on one, I don't think Mike Gillis and the Canucks would be too upset if they had to reconfigure this deal. Luongo signed his deal at the height of madness for GM's and with far more leverage available to MG now I can't help but feel he wouldn't use it, albeit carefully.

Gillis would never want to ruin a player or relationship but he is no fool and with more than a few keepers available right now he could do something quite creative were he not to have a 12 year contract on the books.

It may not be the right way to think about the 'captain' but pro sports are a 'what have you done for me lately' reality and right now Luongo has a tougher job to earn his $$$ than he did last season. Certainly the possibilities are intriguing enough to warrant some discussion no matter how unlikely.

Enjoy he summer as it's getting a lot hotter now.

[Island Nucklehead]

Really can't see the NHL going after previously signed deals. Let's not forget the markets we're looking at here...

New Jersey ranks 10th in Revenue league-wide, and 10th in Franchise Value.

Do you really think the league wants to ruffle the feathers of Ownership in markets like Vancouver (9th in Value, 5th in Revenue), Chicago (7th/7th), Philly (5th in Value, 8th in revenue), and Boston (6th Value, 6th in revenue)?? That's messing with the big boys and owners that have already signed the deals, delivered the players to the fanbase and built their team on the expectation of having players under contract for the forseeable future are going to be some pissed. Gary has to remember who pays his salary, and through revenue-sharing allows him to feed the public BS regarding money-losing teams.

Personally, I think the league had to come down on Kovalchuks deal. Some of the deals are pretty suspect, but conceivable (ie could a goaltender like Luongo play backup for a team that needs to meet the cap floor at 40+? Roloson is getting up there, Khabibulin has a deal that takes him to nearly that age, Cujo kicked around a while). I think the deciding factor in Kovy's case is the final 6 years of the deal, where he's getting paid peanuts (relatively). All that does is turn a $9M cap hit into $6M. Luongo's deal pays him 57M over the first 8 years (7.125) and 7M in the final four (1.75). So you're turning a 7M hit into a 5.25M hit. That's a little different than the 3M/year savings the Devils would get with Kovalchuk (think having Braydon Coburn vs Shane O'Brien).


Alternatively, what if you were to void the contracts of Pronger, Luongo, Savard and Hossa. You'd have the Stanley Cup finalists, and probably a big reason for a marked increase in interest south of the border, being VERY pissed off. Chicago, because they traded/gutted half their roster partly because of Hossa's expected cap hit; and Philly, because Pronger is one of the leagues best, and they couldn't afford him at a higher cap price. Vancouver and Boston is a little different. The Canucks probably have more leverage against Luongo, and could probably get him shorter-term at a similar price, but the idea of losing a franchise goalie when the team is (on paper) on the verge of something great? Aquaman might blow a gasket. Boston might want to get rid of Savard altogether, considering the Centres they now have (Bergeron, Krejci, Seguin), but losing Savard for nothing? Yikes.

Frankly, I was kind of hoping they'd let it stand. The last thing I really want is LA to sign this guy and watch them become the new Chicago right when it's supposed to be our time...

[Fred]

It occurred to me that this ridiculous contract may in fact have been guilty of a little collusion between the NHL and the Devils ie they made a ridiculous offer and forced the NHL to challenge it.This clears the way for a change in the next CBA and then I read this from Mark Spector who thinks the NHLPA was conned


http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2010/08/ ... kovalchuk/

The last two lines say it all

[dr.dork]

Really can't see the NHL going after previously signed deals. Let's not forget the markets we're looking at here...

I agree that there is NO WAY the NHL will override contracts they have already approved. This is politics and yet another shot across the bow of the NHLPA (although maybe the NHL hasn't notice that they already sunk that ship).

So basically the NHL is claiming they can approve a contract and then change their mind about a year later ? Whether they think they can or not, if they try that one they'll have about 17 lawsuits to deal with and the players in question will be in limbo for about 3 years.

What they (NHL + their puppet Bloch) will do (probability: 100%) is the follows: "After the further review the contracts of Luongo, and blah blah blah should have been rejected, but given the current circumstances they will be allowed to stand as is".

The NHL effectively gets what they want and will reject any contracts that are too front end loaded. They won't define exactly what that means but most likely very long terms deals that are specifically made to circumvent the cap will be disallowed. The next CBA will close the loophole by simply saying the value of the contract can never drop from one year to the next. The existing contracts will be grandfathered.

[Island Nucklehead]

The NHL effectively gets what they want and will reject any contracts that are too front end loaded. They won't define exactly what that means but most likely very long terms deals that are specifically made to circumvent the cap will be disallowed. The next CBA will close the loophole by simply saying the value of the contract can never drop from one year to the next. The existing contracts will be grandfathered.

I can see them doing this, or removing the 35+ stipulation with regard to cap hit. You want to sign Kovalchuk til he's 44 at a cap hit of $6M? Fine, but when/if he retires at 36 you're on the hook for another 8 years. GM's will be forced to be a lot more considerate of their teams' long-term future.

Another way would be to set a maximum salary drop from year to year. Say a maximum drop of 15% is allowable per season. So if you want a front-loaded deal, that's fine, but no matter what you're going to be paying at the end. Players won't like it because they'll leave too much money on the table if they retire. If you want to make $10M a year it will take 10 years to get that contract below $2M.

[nucklehead_88]

I'm pretty confident that it wont get overturned....still. just a headache we DON'T need right now.

[Jelly]

Arbritrator was found to have recieved money from Bettman and both of them gets fired.

That happened in my dream last night.



Dammit, now make it true.

[Fred]

I think this is the start of the next CBA, the NHL just won the first round, the NHLPA just got stuck with an amendment regarding the length of time for contracts. I guess that's what happens when the PS is in disarray. There is now precedent re length of contracts.